ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XX


Northern India and Nepal compared to the Deccan


c- Males

The table below has the vital statistics of 131 male Indian tigers and 66 Nepal male tigers. All tigers were shot and measured between 1869-1939:

Table XIX:

*This image is copyright of its original author

d - Conclusions

1 - We have to start with the same remark as in the (previous) post on tigresses: measurementwise, the Deccan sample is less reliable than the others. The reason is the tape 'loosely' followed the curves of the body in the Deccan tigers, whereas tigers in northern India were nearly measured 'between pegs'. This means the difference in total length between Deccan and northern India tigers would have been more outspoken when they would have been measured 'between pegs'.

2 - Cooch Behar male tigers, although only 3,3 cm. longer in total length, were 59,34 lbs. heavier than male Deccan tigers. This comes down to 17,98 pounds per cm. The conclusion is that Cooch Behar male tigers were more robust than male Deccan tigers a century ago.

I know the difference in total length would have been more outspoken when all tigers would have been measured 'between pegs'. I also know the Cooch Behar sample had 7 gorged tigers. Maybe the real difference would have been 2-3 inches and 50 pounds, but it still is a significant difference. One also has to remember that the information of others who knew about the size of tigers in Assam was not used. Not a few of these wrote that large male Assam tigers were robust and heavy animals, not seldom reaching 500-600 pounds.

3 - Hewett's sample, for the reasons stated before (see the previous post on tigresses), most probably is the most reliable. This regarding total length. Weight, however, is a very different matter. The reason is the males he didn't weigh were significantly longer than those weighed. As total length and weight are good friends in tigers, and males in particular, chances are the real average was well over the mark in the table (444,46 lbs.).

I had a go at the weight for all and ended up between 460-490 lbs. each time. I propose to use 475 lbs. for now. The average for male Cooch Behar tigers, on the other hand, was a bit inflated because those weighed were longer than those not weighed. For now, I propose to use 450-460 lbs. for Cooch Behar and 470-480 lbs. for northwestern India a century ago.

Confirmed in what we know about today's tigers? Unclear. I do know today's tigers are a bit heavier than those shot a century ago. The difference could be 5-10%, maybe a trifle more. Tigers in northeastern India seem to be different from those in northwestern India. Those in the northwest seem longer and taller, whereas Assam tigers seem to have more vaulted and more massive skulls '('seem' underlined everywhere).  

4 - There's no question whatsoever that Nepal male tigers, and those shot in Chitawan in particular, were longer than anywhere else a century ago. Chitawan is at the extreme east of what is now called the Terai Arc.

Are Nepal tigers really the longest? Of those actually measured, I would get to an unreserved yes. But experienced hunters thought tigers in the extreme northwest could have been as long, if not longer. This observation was confirmed by J.F. Brandt (1856), who based his conclusion on observations made a long time ago. Any confirmation? Well, there's Ranthambore. I also recently got a few photographs of tigers shot in Rajahstan a long time ago (late 19th century). In nearly every photograph, the tigers were long and long-legged. Atypical.

I'm not saying that Northwestern India produced the largest individuals. Tigers exceeding 10 feet 'between pegs' and 600 lbs. have been shot in different regions, but it is about averages. My take for now is tigers in northwestern India could have been similar to those shot in Chitawan (males just under 10 feet 'over curves' in total length). The longest ranged between 10.6-11.2.   

5 - If we remember the first remark, we can conclude there were clear differences between Indian regions. There's no question that northern India and Nepal produced the highest averages (same for skulls). Nepal most probably topped the list for the simple reason that tigers were protected in that region, whereas they were severely hunted in northern India (hunters tend to target the largest individuals).

Tigers in northeastern, central and even southern India, however, might have been relatively more robust. The widest skulls came from these regions and hunters discussing size and methods in the last decades of the 19th century agreed that the stocky fellows often seen in southern India would make short work of their longer relatives up north.     

I'm not so sure, though. The best way to get to good conclusions is to collect reliable information on length, weight and skulls. Large samples (100 or over) are needed. It is a fact that I've never seen a decent attempt and the result is we still have to make do with Pocock. Reply

[Shardul]

Malaria infestation kept the terai animals safe for a long time. Plus the rich prey base might have played a part in making large tigers.
Only after malaria was conquered, human habitation followed. Tigers in northern India, but outside the Terai did not have such luxury and were easy targets. Reply

[peter]

(03-23-2016, 05:09 AM)Shardul Wrote: Malaria infestation kept the terai animals safe for a long time. Plus the rich prey base might have played a part in making large tigers.
Only after malaria was conquered, human habitation followed. Tigers in northern India, but outside the Terai did not have such luxury and were easy targets.

Although tigers In Nepal and northwestern India are very similar, Nepal male tigers shot between 1900-1940 were about 2 inches longer than male tigers shot in northwestern India in that period. Malaria most probably wasn't the reason, as it was common in both regions. This means there had to be another reason. 

The only explanation I found was hunting pressure. Nepal tigers could not be hunted without a permit. Only few hunters got one and the result was that tigers were not hunted at all in some regions. In northwestern India, however, tigers were hunted all the time. An indirect confirmation of this conclusion can be found in Nepal itself in that regions where tigers were not hunted at all, like Chitawan, were distinctly longer than in regions were they were hunted every now and then. 

If you want to know about the effect of hunting, read the tables I posted again. In males, the difference overall was 2 inches. In regions were tigers had not been hunted at all for a considerable period of time, the difference was close to 4 inches.   

As to the effect of unhealthy conditions. Malaria was common in many regions in India in those days. It affected farmers, but hunters interested in tigers were prepared to take the risk more often than not. Cholera, however, was a different matter. The reason is it was more dangerous. In the period 1900-1940, some regions in Nepal suffered from severe outbreaks of cholera.   

Talking about malaria. In the sixties of the last century, India decided to cultivate wild country in the northwest (close to Nepal). In order to get there, malaria had to be eradicated. Swamps disappeared and unhealthy forests were cut. As a result, herbivores moved out of the region. Tigers, facing empty stores, had no option but to turn to humans. The outbreak of man-eating was a direct result of the decision to clear the country. An American researcher working for an American-funded institute wrote a story about the consequences. I'll try to find it. Reply

[Shardul]

Malaria was present everywhere, but in the Terai it was extreme. It's the degree that matters here. Mosquitos need stagnant water bodies to survive and reproduce which the Terai has in plentiful all year round, plus the tall grasses make it a heaven for mosquitos. Most of Northwestern, western and central India has dry deciduous forests that see extreme summers and limited water supply, which means the malaria threat is far lesser. Plus, the relatively open terrain means tigers are easier to spot and hunt. The tigers of north western India were being hunted far before 1900, because they had some of the highest human population density and was also the area that faced the most invasions and saw the largest wars. This means the tigers there already had been depleted in their gene pool.

There's a reason I use the term Terai, since its a landscape that is half in India and half in nepal, and all of Nepal's tigers are found there. When you talk of north western India, the topography is vastly different. The whole of India is very diverse in terms of geography, and that plays a part in tigers being hunted in those areas more or less. Reply

[WaveRiders]

(01-17-2016, 01:33 AM)peter Wrote: TIGERS IN NORTHERN INDIA AND NEPAL - PART XII


Nepal (introduction)


a - A.E. Smythies ('Big game shooting in Nepal', Calcutta, 1942)

If you are interested in the debate, you have to be prepared to travel. You could start in this forum. When you're done with the thread on methods and measurements, you have to visit the Carnivora forum and find the threads started by a poster called 'WaveRiders'. A bit confusing, but those participating couldn't agree on a common ground. 

Anyway. Some time before the debate started, there had been an exchange on Smythies. I don't remember the thread, but the point to remember is that WaveRiders thought the measurements in the book had to be taken with quite a bit of salt. The main reason is Smythies wasn't there when the tigers were measured. This means his book can't be considered as a prime source. This, of course, also means that WaveRiders doesn't take the Maharajah very serious. Apart from that, he wrote that Smythies didn't question the records at any point. His explanation for the somewhat servile attitude of Smythies is that he (Smythies) could have been grateful for the opportunity offered by the Maharajah. 

Although I agreed with the arguments he presented, I wasn't too sure about the proposal to dismiss the records. One reason was I had only read the book of Smythies once. In October and November 2015, I read it two more times. When I was done, I concluded that the measurements are reliable. This means they can be compared to other measurements taken 'over curves' in that period. The reasons were discussed before (see the posts mentioned above).

As to the attitude of Smythies. I think it's best to let him respond. Judging from the Preface (pp. v, vi and vii), Smythies expected to be questioned on both his motivation and the reliability of the measurements.    

....................................................

  
f2 - They didn't know how to measure tigers in Nepal

During an exchange on (the validity of) the measurements in the book of Smythies, WaveRiders, as you remember, proposed to take them with a bit of salt, if not dismiss them right away. One reason is Smythies hadn't been there when they were measured. Although he is right, this doesn't mean that the measurements were unreliable. What he is really saying, is that the measurements are unreliable because there was no supervision (of the British). This means they (the Nepalese), in his opinion, apparently didn't know how to measure a tiger.  

What to say? One is I do not agree with the implicit insult of the Nepalese, as that is what it really comes down to. As far as I know, there's, measurementwise, no reason to declare them incompetent just because they were Nepalese.

Two is Nepal and northern India were close neighbours. It is very likely there was quite a bit of interaction between those interested in tiger hunting in those days. The Maharajah of Nepal was experienced and I do not doubt he would have appreciated discussions with others about tigers. As most hunters were British interested in records in particular, chances are he would have adopted the method used to measure tigers in northern India. In order to prevent disqualifications like those discussed in this paragraph, chances are he, if anything, would have insisted on a correct use of the method adopted. More so than others, for the simple reason he wanted to be taken seriously.

The team responsable for measurements was responsible for all measurements taken in the years discussed in the book. This means that they were always taken in the same way by a team headed by someone who, according to Smythies, took his job very seriously. More than once, Smythies underlined that the measurements were reliable. What more can you do to be taken seriously? The answer is you can never do enough when you're guilty of impressive measurements. 

How did the measurements in Nepal compare to those taken in Cooch Behar? I don't know. I do know that the distance between northern India and Cooch Behar is considerable, whereas the distance between northern India and Nepal is limited. I also know that British hunters were allowed to hunt in Nepal at times and that there was contact between them and the Maharajah. In those days, distance was important. It definitely affected the frequency of social interaction. What I'm saying is that it's likely that the Maharajah of Nepal adopted the system used in northern India in order to facilitate discussions about the size of tigers. For this reason, it's also more than likely that the method adopted was applied in the same way as in northern India.

Hewett (pp. 68) wrote that the difference between both methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') in northern India was 2-5 inches. When he compared records of large animals, however, he limited the difference to 2-3 inches (pp. 70) and when he discussed the measurements taken in Nepal in 1918 by Sir Harcourt Butler, he didn't say he didn't take them seriously.

We also know that the average difference in males in Cooch Behar was 5,45 inches (range 5 - 6,5) in averaged-sized animals. If I was forced to get to an opinion on Cooch Behar and Nepal, I would say the Nepal measurements most probably compare to those taken in northern India.  

...................................................


f3 - Prejudice

Many Africans think that every person (in Africa) is born with an animal lying next to him. I agree, but would include Europe. The interest in tigers was there right from the start. I don't mind you using the word preference, as long as you remember that my interest in lions is about as strong.  

As you can only focus on one, I opted for the one I saw lying close to me when I was very young. I read books about tigers from the day I was able to read and had the good luck to meet people who had lived in a former colony of the Dutch when I was young. They often talked about their experiences in Indonesia. At high school and university, I continued reading. After I graduated, I measured almost 400 skulls in private collections and museums. I was asked to determine skulls at regular intervals and also measured and weighed captive big cats. In between, I interviewed trainers and talked to unknown old boys who heard about me and encouraged me to continue the good work. I did. This to say that I was there right from the start and never really let go of it.

From day one, I made notes and recorded measurements. This means I only had to go over them when I, a few months ago, decided to do a few tables. In spite of the fact I was prepared, it took me the best part of two months. Although I really gave it my best shot, mistakes could not be avoided. The reason is humans and mistakes are just too close. I accepted it a long time ago. 

...............................................

Peter,

If you wanted to bait me I agree with you this time, and not the other one, it looks like an intentional bait. I am therefore accepting your possible bait. If it was not meant as such I feel in any case the need for me to reply and I am keen to do it directly in this forum in this circumstance, also because you have been generous enough not to ban me at the end of our harsh interforum contention of the recent past. Believe it or not I cannot be happy about that contention or any other incompatibility among people who share a high interest for wildlife, nature and conservation as we are a tiny percentage of the population of this world. But this was the case and we can all live with it without much of a problem I would guess.

So here I am after over one year, briefly as an intention, as not wanting to disturb your thread and the flow of the information you are posting. Should for me necessary, worth or interesting consider reply technically to posts made by you or any other members of this forum, I can assume you may prefer or you can understand I may prefer do it from another forum. I am also quite inclined to believe I am unanimously not considered a welcome contributor in this forum as a comment from senior member and moderator GrizzlyClaws clearly stating this appeared last year. This feeling from GrizzlyClaws and/or anybody else is absolutely legitimate and fully understandable and I am definitely not here to look for compassion. However from my side you can understand I may not want anymore to be a technical contributor of this forum for my own reasons.

The spark instigating my present post is my will to reply to the allegation you made in your post of 17th January 2016 on this thread that with my comments on the Maharajah of Nepal records reported by Smythies (1942) I made in this thread in a post I made in February 2015 I more then likely insulted Nepalese as people unable to measure tigers.

I can tell you I have been disturbed by your allegation. I hope and I am inclined to believe it was not really seriously meant. During our debate on the method of length measurements used for wild tigers in modern zoological studies I did not suggest you or other moderators or members of this forum were insulting Nepalese zoologist Dr K. M Tamang, (who had a very much pivotal role during the first 6 years of the Smithsonian Tiger Ecology Project in Chitawan National Park, Nepal) when you brutally dismissed on several occasions his statements made in his PhD Thesis (1982) that the length measurements of tigers in Chitawan NP “followed the curves along the back”. You definitely remember I have always instead weighed Tamang’s statement as much as Sunquist’s statements. But this a story of the past. Let’s move on.

I want now to disclose something about me so that you may be more prone to believe I am definitely not used to insult people in general as part of a Nation. During the course of my life I have so far visited some 50 different countries in all continents except Antarctica (so far), the vast majority of them more then once, several of them many times and some of them very many times. It is hard to count how many trips out of my country I made, but I believe them to be some 350 - 400+ trips lasting from 2 days to 4 months over the last 30+ years since my teenagerhood. In recent years I am regularly doing at least 15 trips abroad in a normal year visiting 10-12 countries and staying away from home for some 6 months on average. In the past I have also lived and had residence in two different countries other then mine. I have travelled by any kind of means on land and on sea, also sailing for at least 50000 nautical miles including a number of races crossing the Atlantic ocean.

Let’s say that I can state I have some knowledge of our world. What I learnt from all my travelling and experiences I made around the world? No doubt, hopefully, very many things, like for instance to try to stay away from troubles because troubles are inevitably easily met when travelling particularly in some countries. One of the most important attitudes coming from all my experiences for sure is, I believe, my disposition to respect people as much as possible in general unless clearly attacked and damaged. For sure I particularly feel a lot of solidarity for the honest and good people who struggle because I saw and met so many around the world, although I cannot definitely say that I spent time and made huge efforts to assist poor people and alleviate their pains either due to my profession or for much tangible private solidarity. Without a doubt there are very many admirable people much better then me in this respect.

Over the course of very many trips I have been, often repeatedly, in many regions of Central Southern Asia as far northwest as the Caspian Sea coast and Caucasus Mountains in Azerbaijan, in the Indian subcontinent as far north as the Himalayan foothills and the Terai, and in Indochina as far southeast as Thailand and the Malayan Peninsula. I have been in Nepal and protected jungles of Nepal as well as in several other jungles of Southern Asia many times for my personal studies and observations of wild predators. Through my extensive cumulative travelling of many thousands of kms on roads in Nepal from the Terai to the Himalaya I came to know many Nepalese and spent much prolonged time with them. I can tell you that I have a particular high bond with this people. No doubt, like with respect of Indians, our own personal habits are under several aspects very different (if you have been in the Indian subcontinent you can understand what I mean), but this is pretty much normal for people coming from different cultures.

The message I want to leave in this post is that I really love a lot the people of Nepal, I am very much grateful to them for all the excellent time I have always spent in Nepal and I have my highest solidarity for them. Insulting Nepalese people in the way you insinuated is one of the last things I believe it could come up in my mind.

 

                       WaveRiders

 

Reply

[Pckts]

I'm curious where all of @peter'sinformation he posted on N. Indian/Assam Tigers sits with you @WaveRiders?

Since you choose to post on carnivora forum and the mod there has obvious dubious intentions of not allowing certain forum members, (myself and majinglane) to post with out the express approval of himself. Of course the other mods have no issue but it's just one and we all know which mod that is.

You recently posted numerous "hypothesis" and claims of the tigers in chitwan being baited or measured over the curves or some other discrediting factor and I went ahead and posted all of the information on the terai arc tigers that peter had worked so hard on getting and of course that information hasn't been allowed to see the light of day there as of yet.

Despite the people involved in the measuring of these tigers and the weighing specifically giving the means of obtaining their measurements some still try to misinterpret them or some how take away from their true size. Peter provided measurements over the curves or in a straight line or both in some cases, explained why and even specified it on the tables.

You had questioned the sample size and his tables provide tons more of tiger numbers and all of them fit in nicely to numbers received in chitwan. So I am curious, did you get a chance to read through all of them and what do you think? Reply

[peter]

WaveRiders

I was a bit surprised at your post, as we only just finished cleaning the battleground. I usually respond to posts from the top down, but this time decided for a more direct approach. This means I'll focus on the three main points you made; the reason you decided to post (1), your attitude regarding the Nepalese (2) and your opinion on the exchange we had some time ago (3). 


1 - The reason for posting

The main reason you decided to post was a remark in one of my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal. As this remark is most clear in the second quote you decided to add, I propose to use this one to respond. Before I do, I'll decided for a brief summary of the exchange we had on Smythies. 

You remember the exchange was on the measurements. I assume you also remember you had serious doubts on the validity of the measurements, not to say you took them with a bit of salt. Finally, I assume you remember I agreed with most of the arguments you presented, but not with the conclusion you got to. After our debate, I read Smythies again and concluded the measurements were reliable. My conclusion was based on a number of arguments, all of which were discussed at length. I assume you read them.     

We now return to the remark you perceived as an 'allegation' and a 'bait'. Your main argument was Smythies wasn't there when the tigers shot by the Maharajah of Nepal and his guests were measured. It is a fact you used this conclusion to doubt the measurements, if not to dismiss them outright. What to conclude?

One is you dismissed the measurements because Smythies hadn't been there himself. Two is you didn't take the measurements serious. As the team responsible for the measurements consisted of Nepalese, you, and this is the third conclusion, didn't take them serious. If we combine 1, 2 and 3, the conclusion is you didn't take the Nepalese serious. Not without Smythies. Final score: Smythies 3 - Nepal 0. 

A somewhat disturbing conclusion? I think so, as it is clear that the Nepalese were dismissed before they had even started, whereas Smythies, although you also severely questioned him, got away with a few scratches.  

A bit over the top? I don't think so. After reading your post, I decided to visit your thread on big cats and measurements in Carnivora. What did I see?

In your last two contributions, Nepal tigers and Nepal measurements featured. A response to my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal? Very likely. Was a message conveyed? Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds. In the second, you presented someone with inside information on the habits of Nepal maharajahs. He suggested they couldn't be trusted on measurements: those they employed knew small tigers resulted in problems (less pay) and big ones in a promotion. Right. 

What to make of that? I'd say you delivered 2 messages. One is that adult male Nepal tigers are not as heavy as I suggested. Two is measurements taken by those employed by nobility in general and maharajahs in particular have to be taken with a lot of salt. What you really did, was you dismissed the information I posted on the size of Nepal tigers. 

I have to hand it to you that you, this time, used a Nepalese researcher (Mishra) and a Nepalese informer to present your case, but the bottom line is nothing changed. And what is the bottom line? One is that Nepal tigers are smaller than I found and two is that the one responsible for the information is not to be trusted.


2 - On the method used to measure a tiger today

As to your remark on me allegedly dismissing a Nepalese researcher (Tamang). It can't be denied that Tamang and Sunquist contradicted each other regarding the way the method used to measure tigers was applied. This resulted in confusion. Based on the information I have, I also strongly doubt your suggestion that the method used by Tamang was applied in the same way by Sunquist some years later. The problem with this method is it can be applied in different ways, protocol or no protocol. This is the reason many hunters (as well as Sterndale) proposed to use another method to measure tigers a century ago. It is beyond me why biologists opted for a method that resulted in a lot of confusion a century ago. I also don't understand why they decided to dismiss records of big cats measured in exactly the same way. I can only get to double standards.   

As to the method used to measure big cats today. Before a cat is measured, the body is stretched and the head is raised. In this way, the number of curves is limited and a more or less straight line is created. Perfect conditions to take a measurement with a steel tape in a straight line, but biologists opted for a flexible tape following the spine. The problem is in 'following the spine'. Based on the emails posted, I concluded that biologists press the tape to the body at all places in some regions and not in others. Miquelle was sure that tigers in Russia were measured 'over curves', but Sunquist was sure that tigers in Nepal were measured in a more or less straight line. The result was confusion and this was not a result of interpretations of posters. It was a result of the method used.    


3- The Nepalese

The response to the point you made on the Nepalese was largely discussed in the previous paragraph. I argued you distinguished between the British (Smythies) and the Nepalese in that you took one more serious than the other.    

As to your remarks on the Nepalese. Meaby your remark on the plight of people inhabiting poor regions is sincere. Same for the remark on solidarity. The neighbourhood in which I live has many people not born here. Their children are, but they don't feel accepted as well. I know, because they told me. Those who target people who are 'different' are everywhere and often use subtle ways. What we know on discrimination only is the top of the iceberg. Constitutions were invented to prevent discrimination, but the problem is laws are not often upheld.

I move between different communities, but prefer my neighbourhood. One of the main reasons is the solidarity I see and feel. I very much like individuality, but freedom of speech shouldn't result in segregation. I also think the quest for material prosperity has severe consequences.   

I repeat I don't doubt your ideas on people and solidarity. The point is you have to live up to it when it matters. This means you can't use people to 'present' or reject notions you embrace or dislike. Dismissing ethnic groups or the opposite are two sides of the same coin.

Those responsible for the measurements of tigers in Nepal no doubt were well-informed, well-trained and accurate, maybe even more so than many others. The reason is people who know they are not taken seriously because of their colour (and all the rest of it), will do everything in their power to overcome irrelevant, but often decisive, opinions merely based on preference. Remember the Indian 'shikari's' Corbett mentioned in his story on the Bachelor of Powalgarh? They were as accurate as anyone when they saw the prints of the tiger so many tried to bag for so many years. Their assessment on his length 'over curves', seven years after they saw his prints, was of exceptional quality. Premier League.   


4 - On the exchange a year ago

I agree with your evaluation of the clash. Only very few share the interest we have, meaning we should try to overcome the problems we experienced and aim for cooperation. In order to contribute, I decided to be frank in this post: cooperation starts by taking people serious, no matter what. Cooperation doesn't include acquiring tons of honey, cynicism and manipulation. It means you focus on good information, not something else. 

One thing to remember is it is necessary that all participating on a project have to learn how to deal with criticism. This is not easy, especially for those who think they don't need to do so because of their exceptional qualities. 

As to your remarks on this forum and the willingness to do business. It's true that some of our mods and members have a few doubts on WaveRiders. The reasons have been discussed before. In this post, I argued things didn't really change. When you are prepared to adapt in order to play ball, however, you are welcome.    Reply

[WaveRiders]

Peter,

I think I got your message and I believe we have clarified at least the most important part of our misunderstanding concerning the people of Nepal.

I did not and it was definitely not my intention to insult the Nepalis as persons incompetent or servile or anything like that as a people. Possible issues of the kind of the ones suggested by Nepalese Dr Hemanta Mishra (2010) for a few single individuals did happen, can happen, happen and will happen everywhere in the world, definitely not related to this or that Nation.

 

Now I will go a bit deeper through the specifics of measurements.

 

1.     Your posts on Nepal tigers

I admit that in my recent posts in Carnivora I made a couple of references that I could have avoided.

Specifically the suggested 221 kg adjusted average weight derived from the non-adjusted weight average of 235 kg for N=7 supposedly distinct adult male tigers weighed in Chitawan between 1973 and 1980 by zoologists of the Smithsonian-Nepalese Tiger Project. I may have been unfair in some respect, but you can admit I provided some new light on the matter.

I believe the figure of 7 or 8 or 9 males found gorged / fully gorged was definitely not a major issue for you although on that circumstance I had specifically mentioned your name (now not anymore). I had done because I had absolutely assumed you were definitely fully aware of at least the definitely acknowledged 8th male found gorged embedded inside the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and not appearing in its final tables.

You may also have assumed I also conveyed a message that the info concerning two 272 kg tigers, seemingly man-eaters, allegedly weighed in Chitawan during the 1990s or so provided by @tigerluver should be given a better clarification. I was unable to find any info on them even while searching for it to some extent in Chitawan Park Headquarter at Kasare after 2014 when I read about them (I wrote I could have not been able to interview all the right people for such an inquiry yet). Well, it is for @tigerluver to clarify the issue. He should be aware that following the policy in this particular forum claims of this kind should be supported with at least some sort of evidence. Maybe I missed more of his details, I can’t really be sure of it. From my side it would be more then enough just to let me know if the info has been published or not. After know this it will be up to me to be able to track the source. If not, as it seems, I will keep going try to get this info by other means whenever opportunity will present again to me.

There are some other references. Avoidable, I admit under that context and under a peaceful climate or they could have been done in more appropriated manners.

Overall my posts generated a message that you interpreted as

“In your last two contributions, Nepal tigers and Nepal measurements featured. A response to my posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal? Very likely. Was a message conveyed? Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote that adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds. In the second, you presented someone with inside information on the habits and motives of nobility in general and Nepal maharajahs in particular. He strongly suggested they couldn't be trusted on measurements. Those they employed knew small tigers resulted in problems (less pay) and big ones in a promotion, if not a bonus. Right.

What to make of that? I'd say you delivered 2 messages. One is that adult male Nepal tigers are not as heavy as I suggested. Two is measurements taken by those employed by nobility in general and maharajahs in particular have to be taken with a lot of salt. What you really did, was you dismissed the information I posted on the size of Nepal tigers. This also means you disqualified the messenger (me)”.

I believe your interpretation that I was disqualifying your posts on Nepal tigers size far exceeds my intention. I can still have some disagreements with you, but I have neither disqualified your information nor I have dismissed you in those very recent posts. We had a harsh contention last year. Let’s put back beyond our shoulders what happened last year hoping we will not reach again that level of exchanges.

Have a thought on the following to realize how easy things can be interpreted in a different way

You wrote “Yes. In one post, you presented a researcher who wrote that adult male Nepal tigers average about 400 pounds”

Mishra (2010) wrote: “The tiger weighed just under 400 pounds – the normal size for an adult male”.

You interpreted 400 lb (181.4 kg) being stated as “THE normal size” means the average size (weight if you like)

I firmly believe as much as you that 181 kg is an (obviously) far too low average weight for adult male tigers in Chitawan particularly for baited tigers (as it was done for that male) who have eaten from the bait significant amount of meat. I therefore interpreted highly respectable Dr Mishra’s “the normal size” as “in the normal size range”. A bit too far in “manipulating” or justifying to me Mishra’s statement you may think, but this is the case for me. Perhaps because I do believe small and/or not well healthy and/or not fully grown baited adult male Nepal tigers can weigh in my opinion as low as 181 kg non-adjusted or even less and 170 kg or even less if adjusted essentially depending how much unhealthy/thin the animal is even when referring to a fully grown adult not really that small in size (just to have it present, Karanth, 2001, provides the minimum of the Bengal tiger weight range at 175 kg as you well know).

In any case Peter, I noticed that after 2013 or so, if my search on the issue was correct, when you mentioned about Dr Mishra’s surprising unimpressive weights of the adult male tigers he captured in Chitawan during the 1980s and reported in his book, you never mentioned again these data. I do not believe a fair point is you do not believe them as fairly representative of adult male tigers in Chitawan. I believe they are within the normal weight range. Remember who is Dr Hemanta Mishra. I believe it is fair to report his data as well and not only the ones from Sunquist (1981), Smith et al. (1983) and Dinerstein (2003).

I also believe in my recent posts I raised a fundamental issue on the sample from Smith et al. (1983).

Furthermore and most important I focused my posts on modern data while you presented the accurate and reliable hunting records of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar (1908 and in Brown, 1893), Hewett (1938), The Maharajah of Bikanir (1922), Smythies (1942), Burton (1917). You could have included a few more samples within Nepal records as for instance at least those from the Royal hunts of the Prince of Wales in 1921 and of King George V in 1911, but it is not me who has to suggest what to include and what not include.

Concerning both categories of data we have recently focused and discussed I believe are both fine, but I do not generally mixed them and not because of a better quality of one of the two. They are just from different worlds.

Concerning my brief digression on hunting records if you read again my post you can better notice that I did write “On the basis of some 85 total lengths over curves ranging from 2743 mm (9.0 ft) to 3353 mm (11.0 ft) of presumably all adult male tigers shot in Nepal during the hunting era with an average falling within 3020-3030 mm I have available and consider I estimate that the average non-adjusted weight of adult male Nepal tigers was most likely within 215-220 kg (474-485 lb) and quite unlikely more then around 225-229 kg (496-505 lb). My most probable figure is ca. 218 kg (non-adjusted).”

You considered 49 adult males from Smythies (1942) averaging 3038 mm (range 2743 - 3277 mm) over curves and a larger sample of 66 animals averaging 3030 mm with same range. I am therefore in very good agreement with you on computing average total lengths over curves from hunting record in Nepal. We may just have a slight disagreement of how to interpret it.

You also suggested “If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.” I have the feeling that doing this a clear bias for large size would start to be introduced. Remember that we are talking of hunting records where many very large tigers are included. You cannot leave them alone in the sample and then assume the result is an unbiased average of the population unless we have a different understanding of what is the population.

I have a slight disagreement with you on “The average for Chitawan (307,65 cm. 'over curves') is quite reliable (n=23)” because I believe this average is somewhat biased towards large males as Chitawan was more then other areas (as the best closest to Kathmandu) the “private” hunting ground of the Maharajah of Nepal and his personal guests (Kings and other special guests). Maharajahs of Nepal normally granted permission to other personalities (Sir John Hewett, Sir Harcourt Butler and all the others) for districts in the western and central part of the Nepalese Terai also because it was much easier for British, if from the United Provinces, to travel to those regions then to the eastern Nepalese Terai. I have little doubt that every year local shikaris made sure to have available a good stock of large tigers from the area for the Maharajah before the hunting season started.

Concerning average weight for adult males you suggested

"I tried to get to an average of those not weighed by using the details of those weighed. The result was then added to the total of those actually weighed. The average of different attempts ranged between 460-490 lbs. for all males shot in northwestern India in the period 1883-1927. As a hypothesis for now, I propose to take 475.
Nepal male tigers are about 2 inches longer than male tigers in northwestern India. Using the same method as described above, I tried to get to an average for Nepal. Most attempts ranged between 480-500 lbs. For now, I propose to take 490."

and

“Only very few Nepal tigers were weighed. Those that were ranged between 368-705 lbs. If we remove the young male and the giant shot by the Maharajah, the average weight could have been somewhere between 475-500 lbs. This, at least, was the outcome of the attempts I did. All of these were based on total length, because of the strong correlation between length and weight in tigers (in India).”

My "most likely estimate within 474 - 485 lb, with some tangible probabilities up to 496 - 505 lb and quite unlikely more" (as it should be read by words), is well consistent to yours. It is a bit lower as based on a very slightly lower average total length as I included additional animals from other sources (such for instance the ones from the two Royal hunts I mentioned above) obtaining 3020 - 3030 mm vs yours 3030 - 3038 / 3048+ mm (not sure which figure you considered).

Our major disagreement is in adjusting the average weights for stomach contents or not and if we do by how much is most sensible. You presented your case and I presented mine. I can say that I was surprised to have very recently found you to have reverted back over the last couple of months to consider non-adjusted weights as better because they are real scale weights. However I agree with you that adjusting weights when the stomach contents has not been weighed (evidently possible for dead animals only) and estimated only can be subjective. In my opinion it is better do it then not, or at least always specify it and possibly perform an educated guess if the context requires/suggests it particularly when making comparisons. I would not be surprised if, thinking again to the issue, you might go back to your previous conclusions.

 

1.1     A brief remark on Hewett’s and Butler’s hunts in Nepal.

The famous region in Nepal where Sir Harcourt Butler hunted those tigers of particularly large average size in 1918 (or 1919, not clear from Hewett) is specified by Hewett (1938, pag 70-71) to be the Sarju Valley. According to Hewett the Sarju Valley was also knows as the Babai valley in local language (pag 173), reached going from Bichiha, then through Biabaoli jungles to the East up towards Nepalganj (pag 174). By the way, the male weighing 368 lb (166.9 kg) mentioned at pag 171, measuring 2712 mm in total length over curves and possibly an old yearling / subadult animal, was actually shot in the districts of Gonda and Bahrach (most likely Gonda) which are both in Uttar Pradesh, India, and not in Nepal, although very close to the boundary between these two countries.

I can tell you that I have never been able to find the name Sarju and anytime I have been in that region visiting Bardia NP and Banke NP and made inquiries about this name as far as I can remember I never obtained a positive answer. It is known by Nepalis as the Babai Valley (from the Babai River) and it is located in the central-eastern part of Bardia NP.

My understanding is that Sir Harcourt Butler hunted those tigers in an area from the Babai valley in the current central eastern Bardia NP through the current Banke NP arriving close in Nepalganj, which is the major city of the area just south of the latter park. Hewett and his party shot Nepalese tigers in 1909-1910 around Nepalganj (pag 171-172). The Babai valley is located in the same ecoregion of the area surrounding Nepalganj, at least during Hewett’s time.

 

2.     Your posts on North Indian tigers

The other major disagreement concerns your repeated statements of generalization that the technique used by Hewett (1938) and his assistants for which total lengths of tigers measured over curves were just 2-5 inches longer then if measured in straight line between pegs was “the one” used in North India and your suggestion that is was likely the one used in Nepal too.

In my opinion you are likely incorrect for a number of reasons

2.1     There was not a precise “standard method” in North India

2.2     I found nowhere that Hewett’s method was the one mostly adopted

2.3     Hewett (1938) clearly writes that the difference of 2-5 inches occurred WHEN lengths where taken by HIMSELF or UNDER HIS personal observation.

2.4     Evidence from several well respected and known sportsmen, authorities and hunting companies from North India such as Stockley, Champion, Stampe, Corbett, Barrow, Brown (the latter two ones not sure if exactly from North India) and Raj Singh suggest to me Hewett was in clear minority. These authorities provide actual differences of measurements of lengths on specific tigers taken in both ways or provide nearly equivalent info (Corbett for the Bachelor of Powalgarh).

You mentioned this great tiger shot in the United Provinces (North India). Let’s see what Corbett (1944) wrote about it.

“Accompanied by my sister and Robin and a carrying party of twenty men, I returned to where the tiger was lying, and before he was roped to a pole my sister and I measured him from nose to tip of tail, and from tip of tail to nose. At home we again measured him to make quite sure we had made no mistake the first time. These measurements are valueless, for there were no independent witnesses present to certify them; they are however interesting as showing the accuracy with which experienced woodsmen can judge the length of a tiger from his pug marks. Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves; and while one shikari said he was 10' 5" over curves, the other said he was 10' 6" or a little more. Shot seven years after these estimates were made, my sister and I measured the tiger as being 10' 7" over curves.
I have told the story at some length, as I feel sure that those who hunted the tiger between 1920 and 1930 will be interested to know how the Bachelor of Powalgarh met his end.”

One more quantitative example other then the ones I already shown in Carnivora forum last year is for instance the largest tiger whose measurement operation F. W. Champion (1927) assisted which was shot by a party of the well known sportsman of the United Provinces W. L. Stampe. That very large tiger taped 10 ft 9 inches round the curves and 10 ft 2 inches in straight line between pegs, a difference of 7 inches (177.8 mm).

There are also the specific data from the well known paper from Stockley (1930) that I mentioned last year.

All those data including Raj Singh’s ones and, possibly, Barrow’s and Brown’s ones too, come from the United Provinces in North India.

Furthermore last year I highlighted that even the differences of measurements taken both ways by modern zoologist V. Mazak are in excellent consistency to the ones provided by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar.

My conclusion is that the differences all the aforementioned authorities or hunters got from actual measurements on specific tigers are in excellent consistency with the measurements taken both ways by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris. Therefore in my opinion there was no difference between Northeastern India, North India and elsewhere in India as a region. It all depended from the operator, his personal technique and repeatability as you reminded, but most widely spread method of measurements over curves among sportsmen appeared as I wrote above to be consistent to the one adopted by the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris.

The only authority throughout the whole of British India appearing to be consistent to Hewett (1938) concerning a suggested range of differences of the measurements taken on the same animal between the methods “straight line between pegs” and “over curves” was Brander (1923) from the Central Provinces of India. However Hewett and Brander, no doubt both with excellent and unquestionable reputation, accuracy and reliability, appear to be virtually isolated cases in historical literature and not the norm, meaning they likely were in clear minority.

Therefore I strongly believe that in Nepal it was no different and the most likely way the method over curves was applied appears to me as the one adopted by most sportsmen throughout India and in North India itself. This most widely spread way to apply the “over curves” technique appears to be fully consistent to the one adopted by Maharajah of Cooch Behar and his shikaris. I am obviously considering only accurate and correct application of the method over curves.

Also notice that according to my regression equations currently in use (nearly identical to the ones I showed in Carnivora) the average total length over curves I computed for Nepal adult male tigers at 3020-3030 mm corresponds to ca. 2875-2880 mm in straight line between pegs, which is very well consistent to the one you proposed at the end being conservative in the suggestion that tigers in Nepal were measured like Hewett did in North India.

 

3.     Smythies (1942) and the Hunting Records of the Maharajah of Nepal 1933-1939

In my post of February 2015 I wrote I was “cautious” with “the 705 lb individual and a few other records” reported by Smythies (1942).

I expressed caution (caution, NOT dismisses) specifically for the alleged 705 lb tiger and “a few other records”. Which “a few other records”? I admit I could have been more specific.

The concerns I had/have for other records were essentially related to the alleged total length over curves of the largest leopard of 9 ft 4 inches (2845 mm). This figure in my opinion is very hard to trust unless, perhaps and stretching my imagination to the extreme, measured on an exceptionally large leopard  with an exceptionally long tail. There are one or two other similar total lengths claimed for leopards in hunting literature. In truth I do believe all those kind of total lengths are virtually impossible for modern wild leopards if accurately taken along/over curves, pretty much as I do believe a 12 foot total length along/over curves and more for a wild tiger lived in historical time is virtually an impossible occurrence.

Concerning the alleged 705 lb tiger, the only weight reported in Smythies (1942) I am cautious as it is rather strange that only one animal was weighed out of 433 tigers, 53 rhinos, 93 leopards, 22 bears, 20 crocodiles shot in seven seasons between 1933 and 1939. Did the Maharajah have actually available a scale? Was a portable scale used and was the scale taken from camp to camp or was it a fixed scale? Was the scale accurate enough and at least reasonably frequently re-calibrated (remember Hewett statements on his own scale)? Was instead the 705 lb weight figure just an estimate for instance based on balancing of a number of men in the same way Brander attempted to measure the weight of his biggest tiger when he had no availability of a scale?

There are evidently several unanswered questions. It should also be remembered that no other accurate and reliable wild tiger weights from hunting records come close and no such weights have so far been reported for wild big cats by zoologists. The importance to set the highest possible baseline has therefore a very relevant zoological value even if it is a hunting record. Caution and sensible mind must be used.

Yet depending from the kind of morphometric and statistical analyses I am used to perform on hunting records I generally include this 705 lb record most of the times although with the benefit of a doubt.

Concerning total lengths of tigers just to be clear I have not dismissed and do not dismiss the records of the tiger total lengths reported by Smythies (1942). I believe they are all realistic although a likely moderately higher bias for large tigers appears to be present in this large sample with respect of other most relevant large enough and accurate and reliable samples.

I cannot say with confidence if this my feeling is due to some possible little generosity on occasions in the measurements taken by the Maharaja’s shikaris to make him happier or genuine bias towards prevalently selecting tigers larger then average size (absolutely possible if wanted and asked by the Maharajah in his “private” hunting ground of Chitawan).

I will now explain one more reason for my concern specifically related to the measurements actually reported by Smythies (1942).

The Maharajah of Nepal Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur shot 433 tigers in 7 seasons spanning 1933-1939. Smythies (1942) reports 52 lengths of males and 27 lengths of females totalling 79 animals out of 433, by far the smallest percentage (18.2%) compared to the Maharajah of Cooch Behar and Hewett. What about the other 354 tigers? Were all of them cubs / large cubs / yearlings / subadults meaning the Maharajah of Maharajah of Nepal and his guests had so much fun to shoot cubs and young animals as well?

The Maharajah of Cooch Behar shot 365 tigers between 1871 and 1907 (37 years). In Cooch Behar (1908), including the additional 3 specimens described in Brown (1893) only, the Maharajah reports data of 98 male tigers including 4 animals labelled as young, one of which labelled as fine, heavy and with short-tailed, at least 2 more ones that I retain as young, and 1 short-tailed adult animal whose total length and tail length (only 724 mm) I do not include in my respective averages. The Maharajah also reports data for 38 female tigers presumably all adults including one short-tail animal whose total length (the only data reported) I do not account for in my averages. Therefore we have at least a single data for 136 tigers out of 365 (37.3%).

Hewett (1938) 38 presumably all (likely not) adult male tigers for Northern India and 4 from Nepal, 23 presumably all adult female tigers for Northern India and 2 ones from Nepal plus 1 rather small, a few more animals labelled as cubs or large cubs totalling data of over 70 tigers out of 247 stated he shot or saw shot in person (over 28.3 %). I have not included the Nepalese tigers shot by Sir Harcourt Butler in the % calculation as Hewett was not present. If we include those 8 males and 6 females the percentage rises to over 34.0 %.

Based on the percentages calculated and shown above my conclusion that the sample for Nepal provided by Smythies (1942) appears to be a bit more biased for size larger then average then the other ones for North India and Northeastern India in my opinion strengthens.

4.     Hunting Records dismissed by Modern Zoologists

Arguably  some hunting records could even have higher quality then some zoological data (of poor quality), but they are not part of the modern scientific world and generally not part of the bunch of morphological data a scientist can rely to make official scientific investigations and get conclusions affecting his reputation and career. Would you submit a paper in a peer-reviewed publication like the Journal of Zoology having the primary subject a morphological analysis of tiger body size stating that adult male tigers in Chitawan National Park average ca. 3075 mm in total length measured over curves because this is the figure computed from the hunting records of the Maharajah of Nepal Juddha Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana measured by his employed shikaris and reported by his employee Evelyn Arthur Smythies? Would you confirm this figure in such a paper with confidence having available only 2 total lengths of adult male tigers of that area (M102 and M105) from past published zoological studies? Knowing myself many scientific journals and books reviewers I suspect that a paper focusing on such a subject and having those conclusions would be more then likely rejected by any serious reviewer.

Remember to what happened to V. Mazak. Personally I would not risk my professional reputation by relying on hunting records of the past. Should at some point come out one or more relevant records are not accurate or fakes  one would loose his face as all his analyses and results would have to be rejected.

5.     Preferences and bias

In one of your previous posts you stated to feel some people are devoting their efforts to demonstrate the correct rank for tigers in terms of body size is just before Gir lions. You also talked about preferences (in general and concerning animals in particular) and remind the African say that all humans are born with an animal on his/her side. I dare to say that in my case I had probably a little zoo around my birth bed. In this little zoo neither dogs, nor wolves, nor tigers, nor lions, nor bears, nor leopards, nor jaguars, nor wolverines, nor some other animals do come first, but none of them are second to none. I am sure you can understand what I mean.

I definitely accept the evidence anyone can contest to me that I am always highlighting something against tiger size and weight as I am an anti-tiger poster even more then supposedly being a pro-lion or a pro-bear poster. Well, no problem if one considers me as such, but I do not believe to include me in a animal fan-team or in any other fan group is the case. I am definitely not a fan by nature.

My major point is the following.

I have a related background “traumatic” story from when I was a small kid explaining my deep aversion and dislike for (evident) exaggerations in general. The story started when my interest in zoology was born. At that time I was 4 or 5 years old and not even able to read properly. One day my mother after have read the book “The man-eating leopard of Rudraprayag” by Jim Corbett told me about the cunning of this man-eating leopard. I was not scared about the man-eating concept (nowadays they would have probably accused my mother of “cultural violence” on a minor or any other silly accusation like that). I was instead tremendously fascinated and interested. I still remember the first picture of a leopard I saw and I was used to watch for hours. What an animal I thought! I would have given anything to be born a leopard.

Through the years my parents started to buy me books and books concerning animals. When I was probably 7 or 8 years old I received the encyclopaedia “The Little Brehm” as a present and had regular access to the larger Grzimek's one and others. In “The Little Brehm” I came to know for the first time an information concerning the Siberian tiger I did not know before. The info stated Manchurian tigers could grow even 4 meters long tail included. Wow! Four meters!

I am not sure when I learnt to make proportions in math, but I do remember that the first application I made for my personal interests was to compute shoulder heights of the supposedly largest Manchurian tigers based on measurements info on lions and Bengal tigers and the size of the longest  Manchurian tigers provided by  Brehm. As it was normally stated tigers and lions were about 3 meters long including about 1 meter of tail and with shoulder height of 1 meter or 1.1 meters, I estimated a Siberian tiger 4 meters long would have been 1.35-1.45 meter at the shoulder and some 1.70-1.80 meter with head fully erected with an head-and-body length of some 2.60-2.70 meter. And I can guarantee you that I made my dreams on that every single night: what monstrous tigers were roaming in Manchuria, I wanted to transform myself in such a hyper-gigantic Manchurian tiger.

However some doubts started to raise in my head as in any circus or zoo I was visiting when being a young boy any captive animal I met failed to come close in size to any such supposed enormous wild individual. Captive animals unable to grow as large as their wild counterpart was not the convincing explanation I could get to justify my observations. I interviewed my father, talked to friends (who, but a couple of exceptions, knew nearly nothing on animals other then some vague information), read more books, some of which did even actually provide the unrealistic details of head-and-body length of some 2.80 meter or so (the kind of bad info one can still read in a much more modern scientific book on big cats) and slowly I started to understand that something was wrong with the info I had been bringing with me for some years.

I confess it took several years into my teenagerhood and beyond  to realize I had been cheated for years and I therefore realized how bad is not to know or attempt to know the true state of things in nature and not only on that. More, I had been clearly cheated, deliberately or non-deliberately I could not say, by some specific persons because these persons, in spite of writing scientific books of that time, did not raise doubts in their writings that those measurements could have been taken non-accurately, or they were unreliable or from unduly stretched skins or just fruit of pure fantasy.

I can definitely say that the episode concerning the Manchurian tiger size as well as a few others like supposed 1 ton brown bears, 300+ kg lions and so on have developed on me a particular high aversion for evident unacceptable exaggerations or just simple exaggerations granted some amount of variability of considerations, calculations, estimates and so on of course. I therefore do not condone what I retain is bad and/or manipulated info and fight vigorously on that. Now, do not misunderstand me. I can definitely be wrong in many respects when judging information, but I can guarantee that my highest interest is in understanding the nature world and not to make sure the nature world is like I would like it to be whenever I could feel I might have or definitely have preferences (for sure I can realize I like more a dog then a tick).

I have just written somewhere else that “I have a definite feeling that body size and weights of tigers have always been traditionally somewhat exaggerated by a non-neglectable proportion in some historical and modern literature more then for any other large terrestrial carnivores. Sadly even a few scientific books have done it to some extent in relatively recent years and decades. This tendency to non-neglectable exaggeration particularly, but definitely not only, for tigers is going on for over 150 years and does not appear to stop shortly in spite of the efforts and the work performed by some excellent scientists in recent decades with worldwide acknowledged big cats expertize of the kind of Schaller, Bertram, Smuts, Sunquist, Mishra, Karanth, Packer, Miquelle, Goodrich, Yamaguchi, Kitchener, Kerley, Slaght, Turner, Christiansen just to mention a few of them (some slips can occur on occasions for everybody). I am not sure Internet brought a marked benefit in this respect over the last couple of decades if any at all.”

Do I dislike tigers? The answer would be the same if asking me if I want to die right now. The truth is that I am tremendously fascinated by this animal and I can hardly think or find anything better and more heart beating in life other then a sweet and hot company hearing a wild tiger calling at night in the jungle close by. Whenever it happened to me it has been like digesting in one go all the old hunting books we have both read. Anytime it makes me still thinking how much brave men were the kind of Jim Corbett, Kenneth Anderson and few others who hunted man-eating tigers on foot.

Tigers, lions, bears and other animals of which I may have even a higher interest and knowledge in spite of not discussing them all inspire me different emotions. Seeing live a large coalition of male lions roaring or patrolling the African savannah like an army in front of everybody with no fear is very much inspiring as well as the feeling of immense strength and total self-confidence one could get by watching the giant bears at work. Tigers at the same time look so powerful big cats and beautiful that I always had the feeling whenever I encountered wild tigers on foot I could never fly from them because other then let’s say “highly not recommended” I could not because fallen in a nearly complete status of hypnosis.

 

However when I talk scientifically about animals it is different. No emotions, just science.

 

                       WaveRiders

 

Reply

[Pckts]

Waveriders wrote:


"You also suggested “If all immature males would have been removed, the average of the remaining 45 would have been over 10 feet.” I have the feeling that doing this a bias for large size would start to be introduced. Remember that we are talking of hunting records where many very large tigers are included. You cannot leave them alone in the sample and then assume the result is an unbiased average of the population unless we have a different understanding of what is the population."

". I have little doubt that every year local shikaris made sure to have available a good stock of large tigers from the area for the Maharajah before the hunting season started."

I have a bit of a disagreement with this, how can you assume that all tigers hunted were of the larger size?
To me it makes no sense, once you have a couple of "hunting seasons" the dominate males would most likely be removed. They are the most bold and their territories must be patrolled making their patterns more predictable. After a few seasons you would essentially remove all the dominate males and no longer have any full grown males to impress others.
Essentially, any area hunted can only provide a small % of large males, after that, you will be hunting females, sub adults and the elderly.



"Our major disagreement is in adjusting the average weights for stomach contents or not and if we do by how much is most sensible. You presented your case and I presented mine. I can say that I was surprised to have vey recently found you to have reverted back over the last couple of months to consider non-adjusted weights as better because they are real scale weights. However I agree with you that adjusting weights when the stomach contents has not been weighed (evidently possible for dead animals only) and estimated only can be subjective. In my opinion it is better do it then not, or at least always specify it and possibly perform an educated guess if the context requires/suggests it. I would not be surprised if, thinking again to the issue, you might go back to your previous conclusions."

Adjusting weight is very subjective, like you said. Even if an animal is baited, how much they fed that day and how that translates to actual body weight % are very unscientific. We take a number (usually between 14kg-30kg) depending on who you want to quote and we deduct this. I think its pretty safe to assume that any animal you catch will have most likely have eaten recently. They usually need to eat daily or every other day so its safe to assume they have some food in their stomach. Unless a noticeable bulge is present or the cat is unusually skinny, its probably safe to assume most cats measured are on fairly even ground.
If our rules dictate that a tiger or lion must have not eaten with in the past 36hours of capture to accept the weight given, it just cuts the sample size down to an unusable mean. So, I am all for using the un-adjusted weights for any cat, over subtracting an inconsistent poundage based on our own interpretations. If one wishes to note that the cat ate very recently or not, that is fine but it shouldn't automatically be used to subtract 30 kgs for every cat weighed or measured.



"The other major disagreement concerns your repeated statements of generalization that the technique used by Hewett (1938) and his assistants for which total lengths of tigers measured over curves were just 2-5 inches longer then if measured in straight line between pegs was “the one” used in North India and your suggestion that is was likely the one used in Nepal too.

In my opinion you are likely incorrect for a number of reasons

[b]2.1     There was not a precise “standard method” in North India[/b]

[b]2.2     I found nowhere that Hewett’s method was the one mostly adopted[/b]

[b]2.3     Hewett (1938) clearly writes that the difference of 2-5 inches occurred WHEN lengths where taken by HIMSELF or UNDER HIS personal observation.[/b]

[b]2.4     Evidence from several well respected and known sportsmen, authorities and hunting companies from North India such as Stockley, Champion, Stampe, Corbett, Barrow, Brown (the latter two ones not sure if exactly from North India) and Raj Singh suggest to me Hewett was in clear minority. These authorities provide actual differences of measurements of tiger lengths taken in both ways or provide nearly equivalent info (Corbett for the Bachelor of Powalgarh)."
[/b]
No where do I see any reason to disagree with the curve v. pegs observation.
There is no precise way to measure any big cat, there are preferred ways of going about it but everybody seems to interpret it a bit differently, but it certainly doesn't mean that one person is measuring their cat in a way that will completely throw off the true length.
There really is only a couple of ways to measure these animals, they are big and cumbersome, not easily moved or measured, thus this is only going to allow for very few measurement options. This is also shown with the similarity in tigers measured in different areas showing similar results.


"[b]Wyndham, you will remember, said the tiger was ten feet between pegs, which would give roughly 10' 6" over curves; and while one shikari said he was 10' 5" over curves, the other said he was 10' 6" or a little more. Shot seven years after these estimates were made, my sister and I measured the tiger as being 10' 7" over curves."[/b]

A tiger can grow quite a bit in 7 years.



"In truth I do believe all those kind of total lengths are virtually impossible for modern wild leopards if accurately taken along/over curves, pretty much as I do believe a 12 foot total length along/over curves and more for a wild tiger lived in historical time is virtually an impossible occurrence."

There are 7 billion people in this world, probably 1% are over 7' and less than that have reached 7.5' or more. Just because these "freak" specimens don't occur in bulk they still occur. A 700lb tiger is certainly not some mythical weight for an animal that averages 470lbs, its very possible and has occurred already. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is a different story.

"Smythies (1942) is a bit more biased for size larger then average then the other ones for North India and Northeastern India. "

I see nothing you posted that would back this claim.


"Remember to what happened to V. Mazak. Personally I would not risk my professional reputation by relying on hunting records of the past. Should at some point come out one or more relevant records are not accurate or fakes  one would loose his face as all his analyses and results would have to be rejected."

There is a difference between "relying" and "stating"
I see no reason why any modern day zoologist wouldn't educate themselves with hunting records and information. In fact, these books and the data accumulated from them are some of the most comprehensive information we have. The requirements of today are not so different from yesterday, the term "peer reviewed" is used now to garner some sort of validity but the fact remains that the records in the past were "peer reviewed" as well. Hunters compared data and its not like you see some numbers that are without some similar instances to back them. If you are trying to account for human error without being on site to confirm said error, its impossible.  But like peter stated many times, when a hunted animals measurements were published, hunters could still compare old records they obtained or books like the ones being discussed can be compared and they all show extreme similarities to tigers measured now.
If anything the hunters are being confirmed now a days. Most quoted averages are fairly normal range, freak specimens seem to fit nicely as well.


"Well, no problem if one considers me as such, but I do not believe to include me in a animal fan-team or in any other fan group is the case. I am definitely not a fan by nature."

The reason one might consider this is due to your history, the scrutiny you put on these measurements would be fine if you put the same scrutiny to lions. From what I see, you never question a lion weight or length, never dive into what should be considered valid and who nor do you ever question the hunters of them.
At least from what I have seen that is.



"However some doubts started to raise in my head as in any circuses or zoos I was visiting when being a young boy any captive animal I met failed to come close in size to any such supposed enormous wild individual. Captive animals unable to grow as large as their wild counterpart was not the convincing explanation I could get to justify my observations. I interviewed my father, talked to friends (who, but a couple of exceptions, knew nearly nothing on animals other then some vague information), read more books, some of which did even actually provide the unrealistic details of head-and-body length of some 2.80 meter or so (the kind of bad info one can still read in a much more modern scientific book on big cats) and slowly I started to understand that something was wrong with the info I had been bringing with me for some years."

Many captive big cats weigh right in the prime range of their wild counterparts. You should know as well as anyone, tigers and lions have a large variation of weights even with in the same territories. You can have coalitions like the Notches where Ron is a smaller lion while Ceasar is a huge lion but they live the same lifestyle, share the same genes but this still occurs. The same happens in captivity, you can go to Noahs ark, the famous sher khan is a small tiger while Doc is the largest tiger they have. The weight difference between the two is 400lbs compared to 560lbs, neither is obese.


"I estimated a Siberian tiger 4 meters long would have been 1.35-1.45 meter at the shoulder and some 1.70-1.80 meter with head fully erected with an head-and-body length of some 2.60-2.70 meter. And I can guarantee you that I made my dreams on that every single night: what monstrous tigers were roaming in Manchuria, I wanted to transform myself in such a hyper-gigantic Manchurian tiger."

But your sources are from where? We have all read the myths of the these super cats, but those same myths exist for lions or other tiger species as well. But we do know in captivity that amurs are quoted by many as being the largest of cats. How many pure bred indian bengals and from where, existed in captivity in those days is up in the air. But I have read numerous trainers now all the way back to the early 1900s say similar things. Since we have no real data on Amurs from before the days of the STP its a much more debatable issue. But I don't think that all these captive giants just popped up, I know that if they were given the space and prey needed to sustain their former sizes, they would again obtain them. That isn't debatable in book, prey and habitat depletion lead to smaller sizes and numbers.





All and all, I enjoy most of your posts, I wish they would occur more here over carnivora, but that is a different issue.
Any way, I look forward to this ongoing discussion between you guys and from the other posters here.
Reply

[peter]

WaveRiders

I take your reply as a 'yes' to the proposal in my last post, meaning we're in business. Very good. As to your reply. Although interesting, it's a bit lengthy. So much so, that I decided to select a few points that stuck out. This time, I'll respond from the top down. 


Ad 1 - Nepal tigers

1a - Two more 600-lbs. male tigers

I remember the post of Tigerluver on the 2 Chitawan male man-eaters allegedly weighed in the nineties of the last century (both over 600 lbs.), but the report wasn't confirmed. I propose to wait for more information. For now, we have 4 Nepal male tigers reaching or exceeding 600 lbs. (2 confirmed and 2 unconfirmed).

1b - Mishra

You wrote I referred to a few male Nepal tigers mentioned in Mishra's book ('Bones of the Tiger', Lyons Press, USA, 2010) some years ago, but didn't use the data for the tables on Nepal tigers I posted. This is true. There are 3 reasons.

One is the focus in the tables was on length. It is a fact that Mishra didn't provide information on the length of the tigers he mentioned in his book. Two is the tables are based on tigers measured before 1940. I didn't want to mix 'then' and 'today', because of the difference in conditions. Three was Mishra's information wasn't accurate. The first male was " ... just under 400 pounds ... " (pp. 45), whereas the second was " ... about 450 pounds ... " (pp. 132). Also remember that one of the tigers, Bange Bale, lost a fight for territory and became a man-eater (pp. 122). Not your typical tiger.    

1c - The average of Chitawan male tigers

You concluded that my proposal to remove immature males from the table would result in a distorted picture. I disagree. There's no question that some of the tigers I used for the table were immature. I included them, but added that the picture was distorted to a degree: immature is immature.  

As to your remark on what a tiger population is. My take is a population consists of cubs (up to 1 year old), adolescents (1-2 years of age), young adults (3-4 years of age), adults (5-12 years of age) and old tigers (12 years and over). And then there are incapacitated animals and transients. Some no doubt get to old age, but they usually don't stand a chance in an encounter with a healthy male. For this reason, they often live on the fringes. Not a few of them develop into cattle-killers or man-eaters and many are killed as a result.     

You wrote the average total length for Chitawan males (measured 'over curves') is " ... somewhat biased towards large males as Chitawan was more then other areas ... the 'private' hunting ground of the Maharajah of Nepal and his personal guests ... ". You have little doubt that " ... every year local shikaris made sure to have available a good stock of large tigers for the Maharajah before the hunting season started ... ".

I understand, but disagree. Chitawan tigers were protected. This means the population, if anything, should be more representative than in other regions. Did it show in some ways? Yes, the tables showed more variation, more exceptions and higher averages than in regions with similar conditions but no protection (northwestern India).

Was there selection at the gate? I don't think so. In Nepal, baits were used to lure tigers. Which tigers would have taken these baits? The answer is territorial males. Most of them were large animals. This is typical for territorial males in hotspots. I don't think they were selected. Chitawan tigers were large because Chitawan was a hotspot. They also were seldom hunted. The answer to the question why the percentage of prime males shot was lower than in other regions also is protection. In regions with good conditions, chances are females will have more cubs and these in their turn stand a better chance to get to adulthood. The result is relatively less prime animals.
   

1d - Adjustments

I agree we disagree on adjustments. There are two reasons:

* When a weight is recorded in the field and the scale is accurate, you deduct the weight of the scale and have a reliable result. This is a fact. The next question is if the outcome has to be corrected or not and if so, to what extent. The problem is the debate on this issue will be affected by opinions, not facts.   

* Biologists working with wild big cats read peer-reviewed documents and books. For this reason, they know that adult wild male tigers kill every 5-15 days. If we assume male tigers kill every 10 days and leave the kill after 3, it means every third or fourth male, at any given moment, needs to be adjusted. Not all. This regarding the unbaited.

As for the tigers baited. In Nepal, not a few male tigers sedated by biologists were baited. How deal with them? Specialists told me the amount of adjustment is different from the amount of meat actually consumed. It shouldn't be too difficult to get to a table with the amount of adjustment on the vertical axis and the amount of time on the horizontal axis.  

The male tiger in the photograph below had been courting a female. The one who shot him wrote he was both long and well developed. His stomach, however, was as flat as a newspaper. He had to be well below his usual weight. What to do? Adjust or publish the actual weight? My proposal is to use the actual weight and add relevant information. 

The Cooch Behar data say 10 gorged male tigers were 59 pounds heavier than non-gorged males of similar length. This is reliable and accurate information. If a healthy male can gain 59 pounds, he could also lose them when courting a female. This means that a male (about 460 pounds) could range between 400 (460 - 60 after courting) and 520 pounds (460 + 60 after gorging himself) roughly.  

Let's assume an adult Nepal male tiger in good condition is 480-490 pounds. Also assume he compares to a Cooch Behar male tiger in most respects. This means that an average male, depending on circumstances, could range between 420 and 550 pounds. When you know the tiger you sedate, you should know. When you weigh him after courting, you know he will be well below his normal average. After gorging himself, however, he will be well over. What to do when you use him for a document? I propose to use the real weight and add the specifics. In small samples, this can result in distortion, but in a large sample chances are things will even out.  

Here's the 10.1 male tiger shot in the western part of Nepal:             
     

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Ad 2 - Tigers in northwestern India

2.1 - How to measure a tiger 'over curves' - Hewett, Dunbar Brander and others

The method used to measure tigers in India a century ago ('over curves') often was discussed by hunters. One reason was the difference in length between tigers measured in the period 1820-1880 and 1880-1940. Another was the difference between regions in the period 1880-1940. The lengthy debate was concluded by Sterndale, who adviced hunters to use a different method ('between pegs'). Although his advice was followed, most hunters continued measuring tigers 'over curves' because it wasn't easy to find a flat piece of ground and move the tiger. 

Most hunters who measured tigers in both ways concluded the difference between both methods was about 6-7 inches in a long animal, 5-6 inches in an average male and 4-5 inches in a short male. Mazak, a century later, confirmed the difference in a long captive male Amur tiger (319 cm. in total length 'between pegs' and 336 cm. 'over curves') was just under 7 inches. Case closed?

No. The problem with the old method was it could be applied in different ways. Most tiger hunters wrote about methods, measurements and results in their books. If you take a closer look, however, you'll find most just regurtated observations of others. Nobody wanted to disagree with Corbett or the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, would they? 

The only two who discussed methods at length and based their conclusions on their own experience were Hewett and Dunbar Brander. Did they agree with the others? No. Both agreed the difference in adult tigers was 2-5 inches if the method was applied with accuracy.  

What was the difference between them and the Maharajah of Cooch Behar in an average male tiger? Hewett and Dunbar Brander said 3 inches, whereas it was 5,45 inches in Cooch Behar. This means that a 9.7 male tiger measured by Dunbar Brander or Hewett, when he would have been measured 'between pegs' as well, would have been 2-3 inches longer than a tiger of that length measured in Cooch Behar. 

A remarkable difference. How Hewett and Dunbar Brander explain the difference? The answer is accuracy.    


Ad 3 - Smythies

3.1 - The 9.4 leopard  

When I read about the 9.4 leopard in his book, the result was distrust. After some time, I decided for a restart. I read the book twice, took my time and concluded the measurements regarding tigers are reliable. The reasons were explained in the posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal. 

But what about the 9.4 leopard? 

I found records of (Persian) leopards exceeding 160 cm. in head and body length (measured 'over curves') in Heptner and Sludskij ('Die Saugetiere der Sowjetunion', Band III, Jena, 1980, pp. 176-177, 191). In the JBNHS (Vol. XXVII, pp. 933-934), there was an exchange on a very large leopard skull. The skull was almost as long as the skull of an average Indian tigress. Some time ago, I posted a story about the alliance between an old male tiger and a very big male leopard ('Call of the tiger', Lt.-Col. M.M. Ismael, 8 Gurkha Rifles, London, 1964, pp. 94-147). The leopard had a massive head and was 7.10 in total length 'between pegs'. He was the one doing the killing.

I have more reports of male Indian leopards ranging between 7.6-7.11 (measured 'between pegs'). Animals of this length can exceed 8 feet 'over curves' (up to 8.75), but the giant shot in Nepal still is 10 inches longer than the second longest and 12 inches longer than the longest mentioned in the book of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar. It's very difficult to grasp, especially when we consider his dressed skin was 10.1! 

 
3.2 - Tigers of 12 feet in total length 'over curves'

In this department, we disagree. Chitawan shows that pristine conditions, protection and genes can produce 600-lbs. males close to 11 feet 'over curves' today. Tigers of that length were also recorded in Annam and a few other regions (southwestern India, Manchuria and Russia). V. Mazak also measured a (captive) tiger just exceeding 11 feet 'over curves'. The number of reports on tigers well exceeding 11 feet 'over curves' is quite remarkable. Were they unable to measure a tiger or were tigers a bit larger two centuries ago? Hewett and some others had no doubt as to the answer and they were not the only ones.

The Jankowski's shot Amur tigers well exceeding even 12 feet in the days Manchuria still had tigers. Others, like Baikov, confirmed. Remember the captive Amur tiger standing against a gate in a Slovak facility posted by Amnon? Watch the size of the skull and the total length:   

*This image is copyright of its original author

This captive male was exceptional, but big cats of similar size (both lions and tigers) have been shot and measured more than once. Most don't know about these animals, because they are never mentioned in modern documents and books.

Yudakov and Nikolaev measured the height of scratches left on trees in the seventies of the last century. They ranged between 210-290 cm. in height. This one could have reached 290 cm. or just over: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

   
Erich 'Klant' Hagenbeck told me he had seen the descendants of what he called Manchurian tigers half a century ago. Some of them were so large (and wild) they could not be used in acts. Same for the descendants of the pure Indian tigers Tony Hughes saw in an American facility. Although unconfirmed, these stories are definitely not in the department of rumours and hearsay. The old man who came over to see me when I was in a museum, confirmed that some tigers he shot or saw shot in India when he was young well exceeded the limits often used by today's researchers.  

What I'm saying is there could have been differences between then and now. Two centuries ago, many regions in Asia were still dominated by animals. In regions saturated with tigers, villagers at times had no option but to leave. Read Boomgaard's book for examples ('Frontiers of fear - tigers and people in the Malay world 1600-1950', Yale University Press, 2001). In Sumatra and, in particular, Java, relatively more people were killed by tigers than in India, where whole districts had been deserted as a result of man-eating tigers (pp. 61-86). On Java, the pendulum swung towards humans after about 1820 and it's likely densely populated regions in India saw a similar trend.

After 1860 or thereabout, apart from a few isolated regions, the pendulum stopped swinging. Animals were on their way out and humans multiplied like never before. Many hunters wrote tigers responded to shrinking habitats, empty forests and hunting pressure by decreasing in size. Based on what I read, I concluded the adaption started between 1820-1870. 

You wrote small adult males range between 160-175 kg. in India, which is true. The information we have, however, points towards an average well over 200 kg. and there's also no question that some males exceeded 272 kg. in Nepal. This although the total number of wild tigers is less than 4000, of which only 200 live in Nepal. Any idea about the number of adult males in Nepal? Yet 2 of them, and possibly 4, exceeded 272 kg.

I do not doubt that there would have been more exceptions 200 years ago, when there could have been over 100 000 tigers in Asia. This notion was confirmed in central parts of Nepal, where male tigers shot in pristine conditions were 2-4 inches longer than male tigers shot in regions where they were hunted all the time. In exceptional animals, the difference could have been even more outspoken. To keep it short: I wouldn't dismiss records or 12 feet tigers shot 150-200 years ago.     

Here's a male Corbett tiger who allegedly killed and consumed a number of people. He was long and very tall (watch the length of the legs):

*This image is copyright of its original author

Also remember we only have information about some animals in some regions. Many others went unnoticed. If those who hunted large animals a long time ago were right, chances are big tigers will not often be noticed. They in particular are elusive. The male Amur tigers studied by Yudakov and Nicolaev ranged between 10-12 cm. in pad width, but one they didn't see had a width of 13,5 cm.: a significant difference. 

Conditions and opportunities have an effect on size. Anyone who has doubts is encouraged to read a bit on the length and weight of humans. Between 1955 and 1990, a relatively short period of time, males in northwestern Europe, depending on region, gained 3-7 inches in length. In hotspots, the gain was even more pronounced. They never lost their inches, as conditions still favour them.  


Ad 4 - Biologists, hunting records and dismissals

In the last years, a lot has been written about biologists, peer-reviewed documents, hunting records and reputation. I agree with the points you made, but it is a fact that not one even tried to get to a decent evaluation. It also is a fact that only very few used the opportunity to visit museums in order to increase their knowledge on skulls. The result is the same old data are regurgitated time and again.

I understand, as morphology is not a priority. Tiger biologists had no option but to act. This they did and the result is we still have tigers. Another result is their numbers have increased in some regions. The knowledge on tiger ecology also has increased.               


Ad 5 - Preference

You wrote you didn't see a lion or a tiger in your cradle, but you were wrong. I never met people who got 'The man-eating leopard of Rudraprayag' or 'The little Brehm' when they were young. Your parents were the lion and the tiger you didn't see. Only very few have parents like that. Reply

[peter]

A UNIQUE HUNT IN NEPAL (by Gen. Kiran Shumshere J.B. Rana)


a - Introduction and summary

In the late fifties of the last century, the Riblet Tramway Company set up the Kathmandu-Hetauda Ropeway under US Aid. The project manager, Mr. James Stone, hired the estate of Gen. Kiran. Mr. James Stone and his family, including his son Bill, spent a few years in Nepal.

Gen. Kiran was employed by the Maharajah of Nepal. He was involved in the annual shoots and had taken care of things in the last years. In the 1958-1959 winter, the shooting camp was in the Rapti Doon (Rapti Valley), close to a feeder of the Rapti. The Maharajah had commisioned Gen. Kiran to catch a few baby rhinos and tigers for foreign countries. The aim was not to kill the mothers of the cubs. 

On the last day of 1958, a kill was reported. That winter, several guests of the Maharajah had been given a permit to shoot a tiger. The Maharajah had also asked Gen. Kiran if he wanted to shoot a tiger. Gen. Kiran was not keen, unless he was allowed to use his pistol (a .45). The Maharajah agreed.

Gen. Kiran went to the kill, about 4 miles south of camp, and shot the 'ringed' tiger. He wrote a story about the hunt, because the big male had not been shot with a rifle, but with a pistol. Seen in this way, it was a unique hunt.

I assume Mr. James Stone got the story from Gen. Kiran. Many years later, his son Bill found the blog of the son of Gen. Kiran and sent him the story written by his father. 


b - How the story got to AVA

I'm sure the story was posted on Yuku's Animal Versus Animal forum (AVA) some years ago, but I'm not sure if it was the first forum where it was posted. I also don't know who posted the story. It could have been the son of Gen. Kiran and it could have been a reader of his blog.  


c - My interest in the story

Gen. Kiran shot the tiger with a pistol from an elephant. Two shots were needed to disable the tiger. After photographs had been made, the tiger was put out of its misery. Gen. Kiran must have been a good shot, as the second shot was fired from 40 yards. A trapped and angry tiger moves all the time and a (heavy) pistol is much more difficult to handle than a rifle. I wasn't surprised the tiger was killed with a pistol, as a .45 is a terrible weapon.

My interest is in a few remarks on page 2 and 7:

" ... I have been privileged to arrange His Majesty's shoot for several years and have done considerable shooting ... " (pp. 2)

" ... He was in a rage and went tearing past in front of me. I fired at about 40 yards and hit him at the right side of the body just a wee bit lower than the arm. He tumbled and fell, picked himself up and then crawled into the tall grass to my right and let out a painful roar ... " (pp. 7).

" ... One of the Mahouts leaned over and saw the tiger lying and asked us to come in and finish it. We went in cautiously expecting a charge, but the tiger was barely able to raise its head. He could hardly manage a grimace of greeting, much less a growl. His breath was coming in hiccoughs and he was dying. The light was poor for pictures but after Lal had taken some I put the animal out of its misery. Eagerly my son and nephew got down from their elephants to measure it and it turned out to be 10.3 round the curve of the body (from the tip of the upper lip to the tip of the tail ... " (pp. 7).

Based on these remarks, I concluded Gen. Kiran had been responsible for the arrangements (referring to the annual shoots) but not the measurements. If he would have been, he wouldn't have allowed others to measure the tiger. Gen. Kiran, to be sure, was not mentioned in the book of Smythies.

As to the way the tiger was measured. Those with experience know the length of a big cat should be measured from the tip of the nose to the tip of the last bone of the tail. A measurement taken from 'the tip of the upper lip' will increase the length by at least 2-3 inches. If he would have been measured correctly, the length would have been about 10.0 'over curves'. This means he was about average in length for a Nepal male tiger. Compared to the average I found for Chitawan males shot in the period 1933-1939, he was a bit shorter.

We know Hewett and Dunbar Brander thought the difference between the two most used methods ('over curves' and 'between pegs') in male tigers was 3 inches, whereas the difference was 5,45 inches in 10 Cooch Behar male tigers (see my previous posts on tigers in northern India and Nepal). I made a case for 3-4 inches in Nepal male tigers, but WaveRiders thought 6 would be closer to the mark. In this case, he could be right. The reason is the tiger wasn't measured by experts.    

    
d - Nepal male tigers

Although there is a lot of information on the size of Nepal tigers, only total length was recorded. They were long, but very few were weighed and there are no measurements of skulls, necks, chests, upper arms and fore-arms at all. Anything to add? 

Some years ago, I bought 'Hunting in the mountains and jungles of Nepal' (P. Byrne). It was published by Safari Press in 2012. As it's a limited edition, I can't disclose too much. I can tell you Peter Byrne was a professional hunter in Nepal, who closed down his hunting operation in 1970. 

What did he have to say on Nepal tigers? In his opinion, many tigers in western Nepal were bulky animals with short tails and heavy skulls. There was a lot of individual variation, but this was the general rule. 


e - The record Nepal leopard

In the my previous post, I wrote about a 210-pound male leopard shot in Nepal. Today, I checked the information and also saw a picture. I can tell you I don't believe one word of the story. For this reason, I edited my previous post. 


f - Professional hunters, clients, measurements and reliability

I don't know about the experience of professional hunters (in Africa) today, but my guess is the main problem of professional hunters wasn't dangerous animals but dangerous clients. Many were bad shots and only wounded the animals they were after. When their targets returned the favour, problems often erupted. Not a few accidents were a direct result of bad shooting and panic. Worse was that some of the injured big cats turned to humans to survive.

Those able to shoot straight not seldom demanded, and often got, trophy animals. Over the years, I have seen many pictures of animals shot by clients of professional hunters. Most of these 'trophy animals' were (old) cats well below par in all respects. This, most probably, is the reason why angles were created and perfected over the years. Same for 11-inch tapes. Money always talks.

Today, big cats are bred on farms in South Africa. Not seldom, they are bigger than their wild relatives. This is what the 'market' wants and this is what is produced. Before they are 'released' to be 'hunted' by 'clients', not a few are drugged. I understand, but surely there are better ways to make a few bucks? Is this the way to preserve wildlife?   


g - A unique hunt: the of Gen. Kiran      
 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[brotherbear]

DOUG PEACOCK AND DMITRI PIKUNOV WERE CLOSE TO THE TIGER WHO KILLED MARKOV FIVE YEARS LATER   

http://www.dougpeacock.net/siberia.html Reply

[peter]

1 - MARKOVS KILLER

Good find and very interesting read, Brotherbear! Many thanks. I added a title to your post, enabling readers to connect the story to the book of John Vaillant ('The Tiger'). 

I read Vaillants book more than once. The story is true and interesting, the research was well over par and Vaillant knows how to tell a story. Dale Miquelle thought it was a great book. My advice is to buy it when you can. And while you're at it, try to get 'Dersu the Trapper' (Arseniev, V.K.) as well. There's a new translation (1996).    


2 - THE BOOK OF JOHN VAILLANT

For those who didn't read the book. In 1997, near Sobolonye (close to the Bikin river), a trapper shot (and robbed) an adult male Amur tiger. The tiger survived and turned the tables. He found his cabin, started psychological warfare and finally killed and consumed him. After another man was killed and eaten, it was decided to take him out. When they were close to him, the tiger was waiting. It was a close call.  

Vaillant heard about the story, went to Russia, pieced everything together, added a bit of history on the Russian Maritime Province and produced a well-written and very interesting book in which bears also featured to an extent. Fights between Amur tigers and bears of similar size were not about food, those he interviewed said. It was about something else.


3 - INTENTION

One of the American researchers working in Russia, when asked about Amur tigers and vindictiveness, said he had sedated not a few of them. As he was still alive and well, he had serious doubts about the issue discussed in Vaillants book. A bit strange, as he, of all people, should know there is a difference between capturing Amur tigers for research and hunting them. It is about intention. What I'm saying is tigers, and all other wild animals for that matter, are able to distinguish between those out to hunt them and others.

Today, intention isn't taken very seriously. Not so long ago, it was. The Udege didn't mess with Amur tigers and they had good reasons. It's true that trophy hunters and those who saw animals as merchandise didn't care about what they considered as hearsay a century ago. Most of them made it to old age, but not a few were wounded or killed (both by tigers and bandits) and nearly everything of value was destroyed. The destruction also had consequences for those who made a living in Russias Maritime Province. 

Today, the intention is to preserve. The knowledge they had a century ago is largely gone, meaning they had to start all over again. But the intention is there and the result is Sichote-Alin has more reserves, more wild animals and more tigers. It also resulted in less confrontations. Ussuri brown bears still kill humans every now and then, but Amur tigers do not. Even starving tigers, although they visit farms and sometimes even shelter in sheds (...), seldom attack humans. 


4 - BIG CATS AND INTENTIONS

Wild Amur tigers no doubt top the list of some hunters. Those who hunt them don't seem to care much about anything. The experience with captive tigers I have says tigers know and anticipate. In regions where tigers have large territories and humans are few, like in Sichote-Alin, adult Amur tigers know those who share their territory, including humans.

They follow them, they know about their retreats and they know about their actions and their psychology. If a man hunts, the tiger knows. If he hunts tigers, the tiger will try to stay out of reach. When he is shot at, he could act. It depends on the circumstances and the personality. If the hunter is operating with others, chances are the tiger will wait for an opportunity or leave. If it is a one-man operation, the tiger could act in the way Vaillant described.


5 - CAPTIVE BIG CATS

5a - Daniel Rafo (tigers)

When interviewing Daniel Rafo, an Argentinian trainer who had a contract with a European circus, I watched his tigers for a very long time. I saw that one of his male Amur tigers was tormented by a fly. As warnings didn't deter the insect, the tiger waited for an opportunity. He struck with more speed than I expected and carefully examined the fly. 

Rafo told me his tigers were observative animals. He described them as thinkers. As they quickly understood routines, he changed his act every few months in order to prevent boredom. This was much appreciated. His Amur and Indian tigers (true Indian tigers, he said) didn't like each other. There was a lot of interaction and he had to stay tuned in order to prevent problems. Every now and then, he had no option but to allow for a brief fight in order to prevent too much tension. If he didn't, they would wreck his show.

They got their fights, but never seriously wounded each other. This was the deal and they respected it. He said the Indians had more endurance and speed, but the Amurs usually quickly overwhelmed them because they were quite a bit heavier. Both knew the outcome before they started, but they enjoyed a confirmation every now and then in spite of that. 


5b - Two stories from the facility I visited every now and then (tigers)

Tigers distinguish between people. When they like someone, there will never be problems. Example. One day, I watched a vet distracting a large molar from a male Sumatran tiger. It took some time to get it done. I wasn't the only one interested in the operation. When the molar was finally removed, I started measuring the tiger. While doing so, I was gently drawn to the cage by a big paw and pushed aside. The paw belonged to one of the brothers of the tiger with the sore molar. What he said was he was interested in the proceedings as well. In order to prevent questions on precautions, I will add I knew I was close to him when I was measuring his brother. I had never seen that tiger before, but when we met he told me we would get along.   
     
Another story. Same facility. A male Amur I had carried to his cage when the vet had finished (some years earlier), also was known for his disposition. But I had watched him for hours and thought we would get along. This was the reason I stepped into his cage to measure him. While doing so, the one who recorded the measurements suddenly turned pale. The reason was the tiger had raised his head and prepared to rise. I gently placed my hand on his head, stepped over him, opened the door, stepped out and closed the door. Before I was done, the tiger was fully alert (...). He protested about the treatment he had received in such a way I thought he would tear the place apart. It was a very impressive demonstration. 

All visitors, about twenty (including a team of a broadcasting company), left the place in a hurry. When they left, he attacked and we're not talking about moch attacks. Two hours later, although still raging mad, I moved to the exit and he made way (his cage was less than 3 feet from the exit). This although he knew I had been the one who had entered his cage when he had been unable to move. Not saying you can do what you want, but tigers really distinguish between persons (and animals, for that matter). With big cats, it's always personal.

If you would conclude I had just been plain lucky, I won't argue. And then I would. Here's another story. 


5c - About a large male big cat and a woman (jaguar)

The facility mentioned above also had a large male jaguar. He too was known for his disposition and for this reason he was avoided by all keepers. One day, I was there with my girlfriend. In the evening, the director took me out to see a male lion who had just arrived. While talking in front of his cage, I turned round and saw her sitting near a large black animal, her arm over his neck (...). It was the large male jaguar. They were talking. I never heard a jaguar talk before, so I was interested.

I didn't interfere, but the directors wife had seen both as well and came out of the house crying murder. Before she had reached the cage, the male jaguar had climbed to the top of the cage, opening and closing his huge jaws much like a bear would. The sound compared to that of a 9-pound hammer used with force. When she approached the one who had taken the liberty to contact the jaguar, the animal rose on his hindlegs directly behind the woman she addressed and roared like a lion. As animals always have very good reasons to act as they do, I wasn't that interested in what she had to say. The jaguar did it for her. 


6 - WILD BIG CATS 

6a - Surinam

All stories in this post are based on what I saw myself and I saw a lot. To keep it short. In my opinion, captive big cats are good observers, good profilers and very sound decision makers. They also often are very reliable.

Same for their wild relatives. The jaguar who lived on the island we had selected to spend the night on in a Surinam river was a gentlemen. One night is ok, he said. Well, make that two. The things I remember most are the clear way of communicating and the relaxed atmosphere. There never was any doubt as to his intentions and the result was we acted in a similar way.    

Am I just a lucky guy, or could it be that the stories one hears about big cats are incorrect? Sure, there's animals with a temper and there's bad timing, but my experience says one has to be very unlucky to run into problems with big cats. Dogs could be more dangerous. 


6b - Differences between solitary and social predators

When visiting a country that has wild predators, one has to distinguish between solitary predators, social predators and smaller predators. Solitary predators need many years to mature and usually stand on their own. Social predators mature in a group. Every group has a different culture and culture has a profound effect on individuals. In general, one could say social animals are less interested in humans. And than there's group dynamics. In a group, things can change real quick. In most groups, there is an unseen but more or less constant struggle for power.   

Smaller predators living in a region that has an apex-predator are more elusive, more edgy and more unpredictable. Although many think leopards are as intelligent as their larger relatives (if not more so), they have to be on their guard all the time. Lions and tigers will kill leopards given the opportunity and lionesses or tigresses with cubs will hunt them when they get too close. Defence is a factor that can't be neglected. So much so, it affects their behaviour.  


7 - TO CONCLUDE
                      
Adult big cats are excellent profilers. If you enter a facility as a volonteer, they will tell you all you need to know real quick. My advice is to keep your distance, but you can show you are interested. Most big cats show their personality sooner or later. Sooner if the facility is sound and later when there are problems. Captive big cats are mirrors of things you are not aware of. If the facility is run in a decent way, the cats often will be interested in contact. Never initiate it yourself, as you also wouldn't when they would be free. Let them come to you. Adults usually are more reliable than youngsters. The reason is they are more sure about themselves. 

Wild solitary big cats took a long time developing. They are different from captive big cats in that they learned the hard way. They are survivors, meaning they took the right decisions. Those who made it to adulthood and a territory are balanced individuals. Compared to their captive relatives, adult solitary big cats really are adults in every possible way. They are top profilers who have something we would describe as selfrespect or self-esteem. 

In Sichote-Alin, male tigers have vast territories. In some years, prey animals migrate because of crop failures. In many winters, they have to deal with deep snow. It's not easy to make a living in Russia. Male tigers share their territory with competitors, like large bears and humans. They don't treat them as other male tigers, but they keep an eye on them. This means they know about their habits and intentions. A bear or a human can be dangerous. If the tiger is well-informed, he is able to keep track of them and to keep out of reach. If the human goes for tigers, confrontations can't always be avoided. The action of the tiger depends on the situation. If the man is acting on his own, he might be confronted and warned. If shot or robbed, the tiger can decide to act in a different way.

Markov didn't care about tigers and also didn't fear them. The Sobolonye tiger knew. When wounded, the tiger decided to eliminate him. Before he did, the hunter was intimidated. His territory was invaded and objects were destroyed. Those who knew him told Vaillant that the psychological warfare had an affect on Markov. Many thought he had already given up before he was killed. 

What Vaillant did was remarkable. But what about the Sobolonye tiger? Markov shot and robbed a neighbour. He didn't care about the consequences and boasted about his act. Until he was made to care. When the consequences arrived, he wasn't prepared. Or was he?  

Manchuria, southeastern Russia and Korea compare to the Appalachians. A century ago, the region was vast and densely forested. It had few tribes and few hunters. Most hunters Russians, Cossacks, Koreans and Chinese. Hunters operated on their own or in small groups. Many of them were watched by their collegues. When ready to sell the pelts they had collected, they not seldom were robbed. Some made their escape and alerted others. At times, criminals were caught. Murder was one thing, but theft was considered the ultimate crime. Baikov wrote thieves usually were sentenced to death. They weren't shot, but tied to trees to be taken by tigers. The tigers often obliged.  

Russia, in contrast to Manchuria and Korea, had few man-eaters. This most probably is the reason Amur tigers were tolerated to a degree. It also could be the reason they were protected after Kaplanov had sounded the alarm in the early forties. Amur tigers recovered in the fifties, sixties and seventies, but there were never more than 500 in the last 4 decades. The reason was habitat destruction and prey depletion. After the Sovjet-Union collapsed, poaching was added. The situation looks a bit more promising today, but it is a fact that 60 000 hunters with a license do not quite agree with more tigers. 

The last thing they need is a man-eater. They were right to take the Sobolonye tiger out, as he had taken another man not long after Markov. But hunting could remain a problem. When you have so many hunters, new Markovs are bound to appear sooner or later. So far, however, they are doing a great job in Russia. Even 'problem tigers' only very seldom attack humans. In this respect, Amur tigers are very different from Indian and Nepal tigers. Reply

[Pckts]

(04-27-2016, 08:40 PM)peter Wrote: Many thanks, Brotherbear. Good find and very interesting read. I'll get back to John Vaillants book 'The Tiger' in some time. 

I read the book more than once. A combination of good research and writing skills is quite rare. Dale Miquelle thought it was a great book. My advice is to buy it when you can. And while you're at it, try to get 'Dersu the Trapper' (Arseniev, V.K.) as well. There's a new translation (1996).    

At the moment, I'm reorganizing the information I have. Takes a lot of time, but it needs to be done every now and then. When finished, I intend to do a number of posts on Amur tigers. Original tables (skull and body measurements of wild and captive Amur tigers) will be included.

Here is the book, I'll have to go back and finish it.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[peter]

PC and WaveRiders,

Your last contributions were moved to a thread created by Tigerluver some time ago. That thread ('A discussion on the reliability of hunting records' ) is more suited for the debate on hunting records.  

This thread is about information, not debates. Although exceptions will be made every now and then, one has to remember that lengthy exchanges on specific issues are not that interesting for most readers. 

Debates on methods and measurements are interesting for specialists. As they should be enabled to discuss issues that need to be addressed, the thread mentioned above was created. My proposal is to continue there. I will participate when I can,

Peter. Reply